BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 17.02.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI Crl.O.P.(MD) No.8314 of 2024 and Crl.M.P.(MD) Nos.5657 & 5658 of 2024 Karthick ... Petitioner / Accused No.25 Vs

1. The State represented by The Inspector of Police, Madhagupatti Police Station, Sivagangai District.

... 1st Respondent / Complainant

2. Kalaiyarasu ... 2nd Respondent / Defacto Complainant PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to call for the records relating to the charge sheet in C.C.No.274 of 2023 pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate–I, Sivagangai and to quash the same as against the petitioner.

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Vairamuthu for Mr.G.Karuppasamypandiyan For R-1 : Mr.M.Sakthi Kumar Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

ORDER

Preface:

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeking to quash the charge sheet in C.C.No.274 of 2023 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate–I, Sivagangai, insofar as the petitioner, who is arrayed as Accused No.25, is concerned.

2. The petitioner stands implicated along with 29 other accused persons for alleged offences under Sections 143, 147, 188, 294(b), 263, 270, 289, 326, 336, 353 and 506(ii) IPC and Section

11(1)(d) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act.

Case of the prosecution:

3. The case of the prosecution, as unfolded in the final report, is that on 05.04.2020 at about 11.00 a.m., during the COVID-19 pandemic period when prohibitory orders under Section 144 Cr.P.C., 1973, were allegedly in force, the petitioner along with other accused persons organised a “Manju Virattu” (bull-chasing event) without obtaining permission from the competent authorities.

4. It is further alleged that upon receipt of information, the defacto complainant along with police personnel rushed to the spot and attempted to prevent the conduct of the event. At that juncture, a verbal altercation ensued between the participants and the police officials.

5. During the said incident, one of the bulls allegedly attacked a police constable, namely Kanagaraj, causing grievous injuries. Based on the said occurrence, a case in Crime No.113 of 2020 came to be registered against 30 persons, including the petitioner herein.

Grounds for quash:

6. The petitioner seeks quashment of the proceedings primarily on the following grounds:

(i) The allegations against the petitioner are omnibus, vague and bereft of any specific overt act;

(ii) The petitioner was not an organiser or active participant, but has been falsely roped in along with several villagers;

(iii) Except Accused Nos.1 to 4, no individual role has been attributed to any other accused;

(iv) Even as per the prosecution case, the alleged act of the bull causing injury is accidental and cannot be attributed to any specific individual;

(v) The offence under Section 188 IPC is non-cognizable and cannot be the basis for registration of FIR without following due procedure;

(vi) The continuation of proceedings amounts to abuse of process of law, attracting the principles laid down in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal¹ Arguments on either side:

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated without any material to demonstrate his involvement. The entire charge sheet proceeds on general and sweeping allegations without assigning any specific role to the petitioner.

8. It is further contended that the specific overt acts are attributed to Accused Nos.1 to 4 only, who are alleged to have

1 1992 Supp(1) SCC 335 unroped the bulls. As against the petitioner, there is absolutely no material to establish participation, instigation, or common object.

9. The learned counsel also submitted that mere presence at the scene of occurrence does not constitute unlawful assembly unless there is material to establish a shared common object.

10. Placing reliance on judicial precedents, it is argued that when al